1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <andyparkins@gmail.com>) id 1RdhCf-0000IF-Pv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:52:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.53; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ww0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-ww0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1RdhCZ-0001V9-UQ
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:52:53 +0000
Received: by wgbds1 with SMTP id ds1so14386498wgb.10
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 22 Dec 2011 03:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.208.129 with SMTP id gc1mr12666356wbb.4.1324554761785;
Thu, 22 Dec 2011 03:52:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dvr.localnet (mail.360visiontechnology.com. [92.42.121.178])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w8sm21837275wiz.4.2011.12.22.03.52.39
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Thu, 22 Dec 2011 03:52:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: Michael =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=F8nager?= <gronager@ceptacle.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:52:38 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; )
References: <CABr1YTebhitO4g-SarZ7H=aoG9a8zW1wd0rfR32o8i0vODbLJw@mail.gmail.com>
<201112221012.55565.andyparkins@gmail.com>
<23F92B83-4E96-401B-8A1C-3E6FE9DD8A8B@ceptacle.com>
In-Reply-To: <23F92B83-4E96-401B-8A1C-3E6FE9DD8A8B@ceptacle.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1367782.kJgnHEgzSE";
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201112221152.38639.andyparkins@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(andyparkins[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1RdhCZ-0001V9-UQ
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Protocol extensions
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:52:53 -0000
--nextPart1367782.kJgnHEgzSE
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2011 December 22 Thursday, Michael Gr=F8nager wrote:
> But, there is in fact a subtle difference: If anyone can choose to verify
> at random, you will see lazy implementations where random means none, and
> as it is random you cannot, from the outside, judge if a node is taking
> part in the validation work or if it just benefitting from others
> announcements. In the hash space part, you can monitor peers and see if
> they did not tell you about a failed validation and then disconnect from
> them as they are either malicious or lazy.
Why should they have to? Joining the network as a node is very low cost to=
=20
the other nodes. You can't force any node not to be lazy, since their opti=
on=20
is to disconnect themselves. As to maliciousness, that is defended against=
=20
because when a node negative announces a transaction, that transaction is=20
going to be checked (note that there is still no implicit trust) -- if a no=
de=20
is incorrectly negative-announcing then it can justifiably be kicked.
> Besides from that, I like a setup where we scream about failed
> verifications, but keep a low profile on things that actually verifies...
Me too. It's important though to distinguish between "you must be verifyin=
g"=20
and "if you do verify, you must be honest about it". No node should be for=
ced=20
to do any work it doesn't want to; but they should be forced to be truthful=
=20
about the work they choose to do.
Andy
=2D-=20
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com
--nextPart1367782.kJgnHEgzSE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEABECAAYFAk7zGgYACgkQwQJ9gE9xL215nACgkdGcnKFc+uit6/wS3f5/BrQy
cYkAnjLknl94uKch3USfVz8zFfM6+UKC
=AYgO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1367782.kJgnHEgzSE--
|
